Methods and apparatus for controllably suppressing, at a network management system, SNMP event trap messages received from network nodes in a communications network are presented. The rate at which the traps are received from the network nodes is monitored and if the rate exceeds a threshold all subsequent traps received over a set time interval are not processed. The rate is calculated by counting received event traps over a time interval which is either preset or programmed. After the set time interval has passed all newly received traps are monitored. Information regarding traps received during the set time interval may be logged. Additionally, nodes from which excessive traps are received and indicating an event such as a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, are identified so that remedial action can be taken.
|
1. A method of suppressing, at a network management system (NMS), SNMP event trap messages from network nodes in a communication network, the method comprising the steps of:
providing said NMS with a trap suppression function with a configurable set of parameters, said set of parameters including a maximum trap arrival rate per node and a trap suppression latency time;
counting, at the network management system, event trap messages received from each network node during a time interval; and
responsive to the count for a certain network node exceeding said maximum trap arrival rate, enabling said trap suppression function for droping all further event trap messages sent by that network node to the network management system until said trap suppression latency time has expired.
13. A trap suppression system for suppressing, at a network management system (NMS), SNMP event trap messages received from network nodes in a communication network, the system comprising:
a trap suspension function for enabling or disabling processing of SNMP event trap messages received at said NMS from the nodes of said network;
for each network node, a first counter measuring a trap suppression latency time specifying the amount of time during which said event trap messages should be blocked;
a second counter, for counting event trap messages received from each network node during said respective trap suppression latency time interval; and
means, responsive to the second count exceeding a maximum trap arrival rate, for identifying an offending node that sends an excessive number of event trap messages and enabling said trap suspension function to drop all further event trap messages sent by that of offending network node to the network management system until said trap suppression time has expired.
2. The method as defined in
4. The method as defined in
5. The method as defined in
6. The method as defined in
7. The method as defined in
8. The method as defined in
9. The method as defined in
10. The method as defined in
11. The method as defined in
12. The method as defined in
15. The system as defined in
16. The system as defined in
|
The invention relates to network management in communication systems and more particularly to systems and methods of protecting network management systems from being overloaded by SNMP event traps received from network nodes.
The simple network management protocol (SNMP) is based on a manager/agent model in which the agent requires minimal software. The SNMP, developed in 1988 has become the de facto standard for internetwork management. Because it represents a simple solution which requires little code to implement numerous vendors have been able to build SNMP agents to their products. Generally, SNMP is extensible thereby allowing vendors to easily add network management functions to their existing products. SNMP also separates the management function from the architecture of the hardware devices which broadens the base of multi vendor support.
Most of the processing power and data storage involved in the SNMP protocol resides on the management system while a complementary subset of those functions reside in the managed system. To achieve its goal of being simple SNMP includes a limited set of manual commands and responses. The management system issues get, get next and set messages to retrieve single or multiple object variables or to establish the value of a single variable. The managed agent sends a response message to complete the get, get next or set message. The managed element sends an event notification called a trap to the management system to identify the occurrence of conditions such as thresholds that exceed a predetermined value. In short there are five primitive operations namely get, get next, get response, set and trap.
Traps are asynchronous messages that notify SNMP managers of significant events that have occurred at the agent or node. Traps are sent unsolicitedly to the SNMP managers that are configured to receive them.
It will be apparent to one skilled in the art that event traps can identify potential problems with network nodes particularly if the management system receives a large number of traps from a particular node. It will also be apparent to one skilled in the art that such traps can be used by a malicious attacker to interrupt services provided by the network management system.
The CERT® Coordination Center has issued warning on potential flaws in the SNMP protocol, among others, that can be exploited for malicious attacks. A solution proposed by CERT to defend against such attacks involves identifying the offending node (i.e. the generator of the excessive SNMP event traps) and disabling SNMP on that node, if possible. Unfortunately, this is not an option for an NMS because it would no longer be able to manage that node, and this would be unacceptable to the network provider.
Another significant industry source of SNMP services addresses this problem by correlating certain types of traps so that the dissemination of duplicate traps of these types can be prevented. This technique is applied to certain standard types of traps, e.g. link up/down traps, etc. Unfortunately, this approach is limited because it doesn't address non-standard traps, e.g. unknown event traps, which cause an NMS to exhaust significant resources to analyze them.
Therefore, an improved technique for an NMS to respond to excessive SNMP event traps would be desirable. The problems with prior art solutions are, as discussed above, the CERT solution disables SNMP on the offending node which is not acceptable for a NMS while the second solution is limited to certain standard types of traps, and does not address non-standard traps such as unknown event traps, which can be particularly processing intensive to analyze.
There therefore is a need to solve the above mentioned issues.
The present invention relates to the problem of protecting a Network Management System (NMS) from being overloaded by excessive SNMP event traps from a network node. The cause of the excessive traps could be a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack on the network node, or possibly a failure in the node causing excessive SNMP event messaging.
The invention protects the NM from a flood of SNMP messages of any type, not just standard messages as in the prior art.
The invention effectively protects the NM from malicious attacks on network nodes, such as DoS attacks, and alerts an operator of the situation so that corrective actions can be taken. Likewise, the invention protects the NM from faulty nodes generating an excessive amount of SNMP event traps. The invention will also moderate the SNMP loading on the NM when nodes restart. This loading could otherwise be quite large if several nodes restart simultaneously.
In accordance with an aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of suppressing, at a network management system, SNMP event trap messages from network nodes in a communication network, the method comprising the steps of: counting, at the network management system, event trap messages received from each network node during a time interval; and responsive to the count exceeding a threshold, ignoring all further event trap messages sent by that network node to the network management system until a predetermined suppression period has expired.
In accordance with a second aspect of the present invention there is provided a system for suppressing, at a network management system, SNMP event trap messages received from network nodes in a communication network, the system comprising: a counter, at the network management system, for counting event trap messages received from each network node during a time interval; and means, responsive to the count exceeding a threshold, for ignoring all further event trap messages sent by that network node to the network management system until a predetermined suppression period has expired.
The features and advantages of the invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description of the preferred embodiment(s) with reference to the attached diagrams wherein:
According to the invention an NMS is provided with the capability to block SNMP event traps from other processing on the NMS when the arrival rate of the traps from a particular node exceeds a predetermined threshold. This capability is referred to as the trap suppression feature.
A file on the NMS defines certain parameters needed for trap suppression. The first parameter enables, or disables, the trap suppression feature. The default value is enabled. The next parameter is the maximum trap arrival rate per node for all types of traps. The default value of this parameter is 100 traps/second. The preferred embodiment uses the same arrival rate value for all nodes and trap types. However, it would be possible to specify separates arrivals rates per trap type and per node type in other embodiments. The next parameter is the trap suppression latency, which specifies the amount of time that traps will be blocked from an offending node after that node has exceeded the maximum trap arrival rate. The default value for this parameter is 100 seconds. A final parameter is the aging time, which specifies the amount of time that records of a node will be kept by the feature. For each node, this time is measured from the time of the last trap from that node. The default aging time value is 100 minutes.
In normal operation, the traps received from any particular node should not exceed the maximum trap arrival rate. For each node, while the actual trap arrival rate is less than the maximum trap arrival rate, the traps from that node are forwarded to higher level processes in the NMS that have registered to receive traps. Examples of these processes are the Auto-discovery process and the Alarm Surveillance (GGP) process. The number of traps received from each node are counted during a predefined interval (e.g. 10 seconds) by a counter to determine the trap arrival rate for each node. The duration of the interval could also be defined by a parameter in the parameters file, and could thereby be programmable.
When a node exceeds the maximum trap arrival rate all further traps from that node are dropped (i.e. not forwarded) for a duration specified by the trap suppression latency parameter (e.g. 100 seconds). This occurrence is logged and may optionally be notified to processes such as the alarm surveillance process (GGP), so that a network operator can take appropriate remedial action (e.g. set up a firewall, run diagnostics on the offending node, etc.). After the duration of blocking traps has passed, the NMS starts forwarding traps received from the node as long as it does not exceed the maximum trap arrival rate, otherwise traps are blocked as before and the procedure is repeated.
The following sets out the process steps involved in implementing the algorithm according to the invention.
The algorithm when implemented according to the invention effectively blocks a malicious node from sending unwanted Traffic to the NSM. It also allows the NMS administrator to detect which node is sending trap events to the NSM. The first time a node is sending a trap to the NSM, the algorithm, notifies the NMS Administrator regardless of the Trap Rate. The NSM Administrator can also double-check the nodes that are sending traps. When the NSM no longer manages the node it is removed from the records. The algorithm allows for the configuring of all required parameters for Trap suppression and increases the efficiency of the NMS.
It is anticipated that the algorithm will facilitate the use of a Generic alarm such as X.733 the de-facto Standard Alarm Format in the Industry.
The algorithm of the invention leads to greater system efficiency in that only a record of Predefined parameters for each managed node is kept for Trap suppression purposes. These parameters are: Trap Arrival Rate Computation, Trap suppress Latency computation and Node Aging Time Computation.
According to the invention the algorithm, serves to notify the NMS Administration in the following circumstances:
The embodiments presented are exemplary only and persons skilled in the art would appreciate that variations to the above described embodiments may be made without departing from the spirit of the invention. The scope of the invention is solely defined by the appended claims.
Patent | Priority | Assignee | Title |
10171289, | Sep 11 2013 | International Business Machines Corporation | Event and alert analysis in a distributed processing system |
8943366, | Aug 09 2012 | International Business Machines Corporation | Administering checkpoints for incident analysis |
8954811, | Aug 06 2012 | International Business Machines Corporation | Administering incident pools for incident analysis |
9086968, | Sep 11 2013 | GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc | Checkpointing for delayed alert creation |
9141462, | Feb 24 2011 | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP | System and method for error reporting in a network |
9170860, | Jul 26 2013 | International Business Machines Corporation | Parallel incident processing |
9178936, | Oct 18 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Selected alert delivery in a distributed processing system |
9178937, | Oct 18 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Selected alert delivery in a distributed processing system |
9201756, | May 27 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Administering event pools for relevant event analysis in a distributed processing system |
9213621, | May 27 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Administering event pools for relevant event analysis in a distributed processing system |
9246865, | Oct 18 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Prioritized alert delivery in a distributed processing system |
9256482, | Aug 23 2013 | International Business Machines Corporation | Determining whether to send an alert in a distributed processing system |
9286143, | Jun 22 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Flexible event data content management for relevant event and alert analysis within a distributed processing system |
9325588, | Dec 25 2007 | NetApp, Inc. | Event suppression method and system |
9344381, | May 27 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Event management in a distributed processing system |
9348687, | Jan 07 2014 | International Business Machines Corporation | Determining a number of unique incidents in a plurality of incidents for incident processing in a distributed processing system |
9361184, | May 09 2013 | International Business Machines Corporation | Selecting during a system shutdown procedure, a restart incident checkpoint of an incident analyzer in a distributed processing system |
9389943, | Jan 07 2014 | International Business Machines Corporation | Determining a number of unique incidents in a plurality of incidents for incident processing in a distributed processing system |
9419650, | Jun 22 2011 | International Business Machines Corporation | Flexible event data content management for relevant event and alert analysis within a distributed processing system |
9602337, | Sep 11 2013 | International Business Machines Corporation | Event and alert analysis in a distributed processing system |
9658902, | Aug 22 2013 | GLOBALFOUNDRIES U S INC | Adaptive clock throttling for event processing |
Patent | Priority | Assignee | Title |
6321338, | |||
20030061514, | |||
20030110396, | |||
20050210533, |
Executed on | Assignor | Assignee | Conveyance | Frame | Reel | Doc |
Apr 10 2003 | GASPARD, MOISE | Alcatel | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 013966 | /0397 | |
Apr 11 2003 | Alcatel | (assignment on the face of the patent) | / | |||
Jan 30 2013 | Alcatel Lucent | CREDIT SUISSE AG | SECURITY AGREEMENT | 029821 | /0001 | |
Aug 19 2014 | CREDIT SUISSE AG | Alcatel Lucent | RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 033868 | /0001 | |
Dec 22 2017 | Alcatel Lucent | WSOU Investments, LLC | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 045085 | /0001 | |
May 28 2021 | WSOU Investments, LLC | OT WSOU TERRIER HOLDINGS, LLC | SECURITY INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 056990 | /0081 |
Date | Maintenance Fee Events |
Mar 14 2008 | ASPN: Payor Number Assigned. |
Feb 23 2011 | M1551: Payment of Maintenance Fee, 4th Year, Large Entity. |
Feb 19 2015 | M1552: Payment of Maintenance Fee, 8th Year, Large Entity. |
Apr 15 2019 | REM: Maintenance Fee Reminder Mailed. |
Sep 30 2019 | EXP: Patent Expired for Failure to Pay Maintenance Fees. |
Date | Maintenance Schedule |
Aug 28 2010 | 4 years fee payment window open |
Feb 28 2011 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
Aug 28 2011 | patent expiry (for year 4) |
Aug 28 2013 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 4) |
Aug 28 2014 | 8 years fee payment window open |
Feb 28 2015 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
Aug 28 2015 | patent expiry (for year 8) |
Aug 28 2017 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 8) |
Aug 28 2018 | 12 years fee payment window open |
Feb 28 2019 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
Aug 28 2019 | patent expiry (for year 12) |
Aug 28 2021 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 12) |